L'ESPERANCE v. Benware, 2003 VT 43 (2003)

Citation: L'ESPERANCE v. Benware, 2003 VT 43 (2003)
Parent Document: L'ESPERANCE v. Benware, 2003 VT 43 (2003)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2003-05-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1922789/lesperance-v-benware/ ↗

Full Text

1,377 chars

¶ 10. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the evidence showed that the water had been contaminated in the past and that landlord had knowledge of the possibility of contamination based on past experiences with the water supply at the property. For example, landlord’s daughter, Sandra Lebo, testified that a spring across the road from the property has supplied the water to the rental unit for the entire time her family owned the property, from the mid-1950s to the present. She also said that the water had been contaminated before and that Ms. Kinney had added Clorox in an attempt to remedy the situation. Plaintiff testified as to landlord’s notice of contamination problems, stating, “I recall [landlord] saying that she has had past comments from the health inspectors on what to do and she basically — basically said didn’t [sic] believe them.” Landlord’s daughter testified that landlord never treated the water during the time that plaintiffs lived at the property. The town health officer testified that a sample of drinking water from the property showed the presence of E. eoli bacteria, which the Vermont Department of Health laboratory identified as posing a serious health concern. Finally, the jury heard undisputed medical testimony that plaintiffs’ sickness was related to the presence of bacteria in the drinking water.

Other Sections in This Document (64)

Full Text